The retired general offers new options for the American military: diplomacy and the prospects of a commander in chief without a military background.

The Boys Club camp director was a former Army guy. One day, when I was a counselor, fourteen years old, he said, "I want all the counselors to the pool. Today we're going to do Follow Me off the Diving Board." He did front flips, back flips, gainers, cutaways -- I mean, he was really good. And people would say, "But, but, but Jimmy, I don't know how to do a back flip." He said, "Get up there and try it." And you did it.

Most Popular

Slobodan Milosevic was just as smart as a five-year-old. Five-year-olds have an uncanny way of getting into your psyche, your self-esteem. They think way ahead to get what they want -- they're capable of extraordinary strategic planning. Milosevic anticipated your motivations, and he played them.

A few days after 9/11, I went to see Rumsfeld. He said, "I've read your book." He had it on his desk, Waging Modern War. He says, "I'm going to tell you one thing: Nobody is going to tell us who we can bomb and where." Well, he missed the point. In my experience, in bringing coercive diplomacy to bear against Slobodan Milosevic, no bomb strike was more important than maintaining NATO's cohesion. The cutting off of any other alternative through diplomacy and the ultimate consequences that NATO could bring to bear against a small country -- that brought the success.

A commander in chief with military experience might be able to prod a conservative military into thinking more imaginatively. You can say, "Shoot, I know how to do that. You can do aerial refueling, you don't need a base there."

But in the cold analysis of national power, when somebody says, "The Russians have moved into Georgia, what should we do?" the fact that you feel a personal relationship with people wearing a uniform, and hug 'em the right way -- that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to make a wiser decision about the use of U. S. national power.